Reliance General Insurance ... vs Smt. Midathapalli Vinoda
2023 Latest Caselaw 1323 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.3005 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

Assailing the order and decree, dated 17.04.2017

made in M.V.O.P.No.528 of 2014 on the file of the XIII

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B.Nagar (for short "the Tribunal"), the Reliance

General Insurance Company Limited, preferred this appeal

challenging the quantum of compensation being excessive.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties

shall be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a

claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- for the

death of one Midatapalli Venkanna, husband of claimant

No. 1, father of claimant Nos. 2 &3, son of claimant Nos. 4

& 5 (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') in a motor

vehicle accident that occurred on 21.06.2014. According

to the claimants, on the fateful day, the deceased was

MGP, J Macma_3005_2017

proceeding on his Auto bearing No.AP 36 Y 0520, along

with passengers from Bachodu village to Maripeda bangle

on the highway, when he reached Subbledu Cross road of

Medidepalli village, Thirumalayapalem, Khammam, at

about 01:00 p.m., one DCM van bearing No.AP 28 TD

6163, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with the

respondent No.2, appellant herein, being driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed,

dashed the auto of the deceased, as a result of which, the

auto turned turtle and the deceased received severe head

injury and died on the spot. It is the further case of the

claimants that prior to the accident, the deceased was

earning Rs.15,000/- per month as auto driver and

Rs.2,000/- by working as part time NPMVA in M/s.Sri

Ramkrishna Grama Samakya. Due to his sudden demise,

the claimants lost their bread winner, love and affection.

Therefore, the claimants have laid the claim against the

owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, DCM van.

4. While, respondent No.1 remained ex parte,

respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the

MGP, J Macma_3005_2017

claim petition, including the manner in which the accident

took place, age, income and occupation of the deceased. It

is further contended that the claim is highly excessive and

exorbitant and prays to dismiss the O.P.

5. Considering the claim and counter filed by the

appellant herein and also the oral and documentary

evidence brought on record, the tribunal allowed the O.P.

awarding a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- towards compensation

with interest at 9% per annum, to be paid by the

respondents jointly and severally. Challenging the same,

the appellant-Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel Standing Counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company. In spite of several

adjournments, none appears on behalf of the respondents.

Perused the record.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant

submits that the Tribunal without proper evidence on

record has taken the income of the deceased at

MGP, J Macma_3005_2017

Rs.15,000/- per month and further awarded lump sum

amount towards loss of consortium, loss of love and

affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses, which are

exorbitant and prays to allow the appeal by reducing the

quantum of compensation. Further, the learned standing

counsel has contended that considering the avocation of

the deceased, the Tribunal erred in added 50% future

prospects instead it should be restricted to 40%. It is lastly

contended that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal

at 9% per annum is on higher side and it should not be

more than 7.5% per annum.

8. With regard to the manner in which the accident took

place, a perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that

the Tribunal having framed Issue No.1 as to whether the

accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the

DCM van bearing No.AP 28 TD 6163 causing death of the

deceased and having considered the evidence of P.W.2,

eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the documentary

evidence i.e., Exs.A1, F.I.R. and A2, Charge Sheet, has

categorically observed that the accident has occurred due

MGP, J Macma_3005_2017

to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM

van and has answered the issue in favour of the claimants

and against the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to

interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in holding that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the DCM van.

9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is

concerned, as per the claimants, the deceased was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month as Auto driver apart from earning

Rs.2,000/- by working as part time NPMVA in M/s.Sri

Ramkrishna Grama Samakya. In support of their claim,

the claimants have not adduced any oral or documentary

evidence. After considering the age and avocation of the

deceased, the Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.7,500/-

per month though the claimants have claimed the income

at Rs.15,000/- per month. The said income fixed by the

tribunal at Rs.7,500/- per month is on higher side

considering the avocation of the deceased. Hence, this

Court is inclined to fix the income of the deceased at

Rs.6,000/- per month. Considering the age of the

MGP, J Macma_3005_2017

deceased as 36 years at the time of the accident, 40% has

to be added, towards future prospects as per the decision

of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, and by adding so,

the future monthly income works out to Rs.8,400/-

(Rs.6,000 + 2,400). After deducting 1/4th towards personal

expenses of the deceased, the net income of the deceased

comes to Rs.6,300/- per month. Considering the age of the

deceased as 36 years at the time of accident, the

appropriate multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex

Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2

is "15". Thus, the future loss of dependency comes to

Rs.11,34,000/- (Rs.6,300/- x 12 x 15). However, as

rightly stated by the learned standing counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company, the Tribunal has awarded

excess amount i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium of

claimant No.1, Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection,

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.50,000/- each to

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_3005_2017

claimant Nos. 2 & 3 under the head of parental

consortium, which are all on higher side. Thus, as per

Pranay Sethi (Supra), the amount of Rs.3,10,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is

hereby reduced to Rs.77,000/-. Further, the claimant No. 3

alone being the minor daughter of the deceased, is entitled

to Rs.40,000/- under the head of parental consortium as

per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General

Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru

Ram and others3. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled

to Rs.12,51,000/-, which is just and reasonable.

10. Insofar rate of interest is concerned, as per the

decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir

Singh and others4, the claimants are entitled to interest

@ 7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal from the date of petition till realization but not 9%

as was awarded by the Tribunal.

(2018) 18 SCC 130 4 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

MGP, J Macma_3005_2017

11. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed and the

compensation granted by the Tribunal is reduced from

Rs.18,50,000/- to Rs.12,51,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of realization

to be deposited by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and

severally. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 20.03.2023 gms/tsr

MGP, J Macma_3005_2017

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A.No.3005 of 2017

DATE: 20.03.2023

gms/tsr